[WikiEN-l] CITE nazis

[David Gerard]

On 14/08/06, stevertigo <vertigosteve at yahoo.com> wrote:

> Im not sure on the stats, but it is my impression that this demand for
> verifiability is 1) deletionistic 2) one sided, and not applied to one's
> own person and 3) comes with some attached notion of "reliable sources" by
> which material from any deemed "unreliable" sources can be deleted.
> Thats the topic. Discuss.


e.g. the War on Blogs, wherein some editors have got it into their
heads that ALL BLOGS ARE EVIL AND MUST NEVER BE USED IN REFERENCES
rather than e.g. regarding them as, say, lesser sources than
peer-reviewed academic papers and assuming the reader can read. The
response to crap sources is to say "those are crap sources, cut it
out" rather than countering foolishness with foolishness.

On non-contentious topics, the right way to do it would be to shift it
to the talk page for discussion and an attempt at sourcing, e.g. the
stuff on the early [[Casio Exilim]]s being crap in low light is
observed by a pile of Exilim owners (e.g. me) but I can't find a good
source - so out it goes as original research, but it's on the talk
page should I or someone find something verifiable showing this to be
an issue.

On contentious topics, there is good reason to be hard-arsed about
sources. But that doesn't mean you go overboard and legalistic because
someone who hates blogs edit-warred that wording into WP:V.


- d.